Federal government created the mess we're in, not those who are wealthy

Posted on Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:02 a.m.

Federal government created the mess we're in, not those who are wealthy

By Guest Column

It is clear to me that the “Wall Street Occupiers” are going after the symptoms of our problems, not the disease. Being rich is not an evil thing -- it is how you become rich that is at issue. The naive protestors do not seem to understand that the federal government is the problem and has created the mess with which we are in.

Federal spending, such as the $700 billion “stimulus package,” does not generate wealth - it only transfers money from one pocket to another. While it is nice to have a new bicycle bridge over U.S. 23 next to Geddes Road. the bridge is not worth anything because no one will buy it.

Ben H. Colmery III

Wealth is created by establishing a business that makes something or provides a service. Making something to sell is easy to understand. The item has value and if produced for a profit the business has value to an investor or buyer. The service industry, even a hamburger stand, develops wealth if it is run properly and generates a profit. When the owner sells the business part of its value is the “blue sky” or “goodwill’ it has created. People are employed and continue to be employed when wealth is created. Simply paying for infrastructure repair robs Peter to pay Paul -- and both are out of a job when the money dries up.

Crony capitalism is a major problem perpetuated by the federal government. Investing our tax dollars in favored companies under the philosophic argument that it will be good for our country is simply wrong. Of course, Solyndra is the current classic example. Two years ago the federal government invested in a South Korean company (L.G.) that makes car batteries for hybrid vehicles located near Kalamazoo. The list is endless. These practices simply must stop.

It is the well intentioned legislation with unintended consequences created by federal legislation that is even a larger problem. The “Affordable Housing Act” generated by President Carter is the genesis of the recent housing market meltdown contributing to the resulting recession. The money made by “Wall Street” resulted from this legislation and the illusion of the housing market boom. “Wall Street” merely reacted to the gold mine presented to them by the federal government. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are equally guilty of contributing to the meltdown by underwriting worthless mortgages -- all in the name of a federal “feel good” program to make home ownership accessible to people who couldn’t afford the mortgages.

Taxing the rich is a romantic thought -- the Robin Hood approach, but it doesn’t solve the problem. As per Forbes magazine, the top 400 wealthiest individuals in the United States are worth 1.5 trillion dollars. Even if the federal government taxed them at 100 percent of worth, this money would not even cover half of this year’s budget, let alone make a dent in the 14+ trillion dollar national debt. There are approximately 1,400,000 people in the top 1 percent of wage earners. This one percent paid 38% of the income tax revenue in 2008. To generate a trillion dollars more this group would be required to each pay an additional $715,000 in taxes. The bottom 50% of wage earners paid 2.59% of the income tax revenue. So, who is carrying the load?

And as for corporations -- they don’t pay taxes, you do for them. Taxes are imbedded in the cost of doing business and are included in the cost of goods and services. As previously stated -- the federal government doesn’t create wealth, it transfers existing wealth.

The creation of the Federal Reserve -- a private bank that controls our money supply was and is a bad idea. There simply are too many connections between banks, investment firms, and the Federal Reserve -- without a glimmer of transparency. We must return to the banking system prior to Jekyll Island and place the money supply back in the hands of Congress and “the people.”

If the “Wall Street Occupiers” and those in our own Liberty Square really want to have an impact they must focus on Washington and ask for accountability from our government. But wait, the Tea Party has already done this -- without the violence.

Ben H. Colmery III is a veterinarian and a long-time resident of Ann Arbor. He is in private practice and has been on the faculty at Michigan State University and on staff at veterinary specialty practices.

Comments

Tru2Blu76

Fri, Dec 16, 2011 : 1:12 a.m.

Mr Colmery presents a case which is exactly opposite of the facts and truth. The meltdown in the real estate market was due to CONSCIOUS misuse of the law dealing with mortgage lending. And THAT misuse was perpetrated by the very executives who collected huge bonuses on top of huge "salaries" and Golden Benefits the likes of which the majority of us will never see. They sold "insurance" without value: to other financial institutions which could have refused taking on so many toxic mortgage loans. They KNEW what they were doing and made jokes about it. A few bad apples spoil the barrel, goes the old saying, but today we see that Insulation Behind Piles of Money is the accepted rule in businesses. David Pogue in the New York Times wrote today about the lack of consideration given to pushing shoddy, poorly developed products on consumers: on the "premise" that immediate profit outweighs the obligation to give value for value received. He tells of the talk he gave at Columbia University's business school, were he originally made this comment: the students told him he was wrong! They "corrected him" by saying that, indeed, the importance of immediate short-term "cash flow" is the primary concern, NOT the conscious dishonesty involved in selling garbage for real, hard earned money. We all know what's going on: but I think we're just catching on to the real toxicity of this "proud policy" of giving fortunes to people who don't even care if the company they're working for survives or collapses. And we're beginning to smell the rottenness coming from corporate take over of our political and legal infrastructure: through cleverly disguised (by deferral) bribes to massive funding of candidates who then "respond" by passing ONLY legislation which favors businesses and abolishing laws which enforce regulation and honest dealings. We still want to see these criminals in jail:and maybe some of the

Richard Wickboldt

Thu, Dec 15, 2011 : 1:42 a.m.

Correct, being wealthy is not a crime. How you get to be wealthy can be a crime. Unfortunately the economic system in this country is broken and outdated at the least. The worst, it has been corrupted by the laws and tax code made by our legislatures, making it legal to steal our money. So much is being stolen that this country is broke. The rules along with the check and balances, which provided a sound foundation for the economy, fairness and the generation of wealth by those who worked hard, has been chipped away and now crumbling into a pile of sand. Over the past couple of decades our state and federal legislators allowed themselves to be influenced and corrupted by greedy wealthy people (and corporations) to implement laws for wealth generation without working and innovating to produce something for our country and society; most importantly jobs. Consequently we have some very very filthy greedy rich people in this country. These are people with 100s of millions and even many with billions of dollars. More than any one person could ever need to be comfortable in a lifetime. This is why we have the Occupy Wall Street protesters.

Richard Wickboldt

Thu, Dec 15, 2011 : 1:41 a.m.

Let's put this in perspective. The average annual wage in the US is approximately $54,000. Work for 40 years and earn a total of $2,160,000. So when a person has a billion dollars they actually have the life time earnings of about 463 average American workers and their families. So every billion flowing to the very few via crony capitalism within our nation capitals; 463 families are deprived a lifetime of earnings. Additionally those corporations sitting on two trillion in cash are depriving 926,000 family lifetime earnings. The federal deficit of 15 trillion equals 6,945,000 family lifetime earnings. Our country... our society... our freedoms cannot sustain this imbalance! This country's economic system is broken and broke! The Wall Street occupiers should be opening our eyes not criticized. Yes the root cause is our federal and also state governments, no doubt about it. The answer, the fix, is staring you in the mirror each day. Yes you! The voter who elects those in government. We the voters who keep re-electing the same legislatures (many who are wealthy) whom make all the laws and regulations to allow the crony capitalism. We the voters who keep re-electing the same legislatures who aren't strong enough to prevent the crony capitalism. The actual root cause is you and I. The voters. Let's open our eyes. I'll step down for now... next. Richard Wickboldt

lefty48197

Wed, Dec 14, 2011 : 11:06 p.m.

Why do so many people misinterpret or misunderstand the reasons for the OWS movement? It's pretty simple: It's all about corporate greed. Corporations are doing everything to increase their own profits (so they can justify golden parachutes for their CEO's no doubt). What's the easiest way for corporations to increase profits? By sending all the manufacturing jobs to China that's how. Corporations are working to increase their own profits while destroying the American middle class and our manufacturing economy. That's the problem.

Patrick Julius

Tue, Dec 13, 2011 : 4:36 a.m.

When Colmery does make clear statements, they are typically misleading, if not outright false. Taxing the rich most definitely can reduce deficits, and it has done so in the past—it was a major reason Clinton left office with a budget surplus. The top 1% would, on average, have to pay an additional $700,000 per year in taxes, yes; and they can afford to do so. The Walton heirs each have incomes of $1 billion or more; they can spare $700,000 to pay for Medicare. (Someone making the median $30,000 per year, paying the same rate, would have to give up a whopping $21.) The bottom half of wage earners pay no income tax because they have very little income. To pick on the Waltons again, six people—0.000002% of Americans—own as much wealth as the bottom 30% of Americans. But of course most of the income tax revenue comes from the rich: Income tax is designed to be progressive. Higher earners pay higher rates. It's not that hard to understand. Payroll taxes, by contrast, are regressive; higher earners pay lower rates. Hence, most payroll tax revenue comes from the middle class. Maybe Colmery objects to progressive taxation in general? If so he should say that, instead of acting shocked when a progressive tax system turns out to be so... progressive. Moreover, there is a simple solution to the Federal budget deficit. If we merely taxed capital gains at ordinary income rates (35% instead of 15%), the deficit would disappear. And for those following along at home: Yes, you really do pay twice as much tax on a paycheck as you would on stock options. Sound fair to you? It doesn't to me either. Apparently Colmery thinks this is fair. At least I think he does; it's hard to tell from the nonsense he wrote.

Patrick Julius

Tue, Dec 13, 2011 : 4:34 a.m.

Ben Colmery III appears to be making some sort of economic argument, but it's so confused that I can't really make sense out of it. For example, he criticizes "crony capitalism". This is commonly understood to be the corrupt and undue influence of business on government, or in other words exactly what Occupy Wall Street objects to. He then says something about "while it is nice to have a new bicycle bridge [...], it's not worth anything because no one will buy it". This apparently confuses utility with price. If something is nice to have, that means it has value. That's what value is—being something nice to have. Market prices can and do differ from actual value—it's called "market failure", and Colmery may want to read up on it. He does get a few basics right: "Wealth is created by establishing a business that makes something or provides a service." That's exactly right—it's also the reason why the financialization of the American economy is so worrisome. Increasingly, we don't make things or provide services; instead we move numbers around and try to make wealth out of thin air. (Hint: It can't be done, not even with clever math.) China's vaguely mercantilist monetary policy helps us much in this regard; they collect lots of American paper while we get to have all the actual Chinese goods. Next, he pulled out this howler: "Simply paying for infrastructure robs Peter to pay Paul." No, infrastructure has value—value far exceeding its price in fact, what economists call "positive externalities". Consider power lines, roads, bridges, the Internet; these are the foundation of modern commerce. TARP and the Fed bailouts (totaling $8.4 trillion between them) were, arguably, robbing Peter to pay Paul. But investing in solar power and bridge construction creates real value for the future. If you don't think it's worth the price, you can say so; but when you assert that infrastructure is valueless you drive serious economists to drink.

John Q

Tue, Dec 13, 2011 : 4:01 a.m.

The claim made by braggslaw and the original commentary that Fannie and Freddie and requirements for affordable housing requirements caused the financial meltdown of 2008 have been thoroughly debunked. In 2006, more than 84 percent of the subprime lending was done by private lendors. Likewise, of the top 25 subprime lenders, only one was subject to affordable housing requirement. These are inconvenient facts for conservative mythmakers but like all conservatives myths, facts are irrelevant. When the facts don't fit, they'll simply lie instead.

Duke Silver

Tue, Dec 13, 2011 : 1:08 a.m.

I guess you missed the part where the big investment banks like Goldman Sachs stacked the treasury with their bankers and bought legislation that enabled them to invest on mass scale in unregulated financial assets that didn't actually produce anything tangible, so that trillions of dollars from around the world were dumped down the empty dream that housing prices always go up. Or all that predatory lending in which banks took advantage of all those hopeful homeowners they convinced could afford that mortgage. Or the trillions of dollars your Republican Party dumped in the sinkhole of two misguided wars, paid for by the Chinese who now have us by the throat, while the Democrats went along with it like lap dogs. Or the fact that rich people (not all, mind you) have continually, these past 30 years, pushed legislation that has concentrated the wealth of the American economy into the very top at levels we last saw right before the Great Depression. Blaming the government here is like blaming guns for killing, when it is the people using the guns, and the government, that should be blamed. All of the issues you have raised are certainly part of the problem. But you've managed to somehow overlooked trillions of dollars in your accounting.

AAFish

Tue, Dec 13, 2011 : 12:48 a.m.

When I first read this piece, I thought, "What a splendid parody of right-wing crackpottery. It merits being published in The Onion." Then I realized, to my dismay, that the guy is actually serious. Please, Doc, stick to treating animals. An economist (a legitimate one, anyway) you are not.

Jim

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 8:14 p.m.

We were running budget surpluses until Bush added his tax cuts, the medicare fix, and the two wars. None of that was paid for by other means. That's most of the mess right there.

Mark

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 5:35 p.m.

Anyone who has been employed by the state for much of their livelihood, and then says government does not create wealth is so full of B.S. that anything else that follows is suspect. Really, one needs to think about the stupidity of such a statement that gets repeated time and time again by tea partiers, etc.

Mark

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.

AABro -- Let's see where do you want to start over again? I no more trust corporations to run things than I do POLITICIANS. It's the political system that has made things so messed up. Common-sense bills get so much crap added onto them that the original intent is lost. We have lobbyists representing every conceivable cause and business sticking their cash into the hands of those in government. Instead of doing things that are right and putting the country forward, we have gridlock and a political divide that is a mess. I don't have a solution, but to not see that corporations and the wealthiest 1% in this country have not paid their fair share of the burden is pretty blind. The tax rate of corporations in the 1960s was amazingly higher than it has been in the past 30 years -- and those businesses made tons of money. We have gone off track with unfunded wars (starting with LBJ), and a host of other things. There are some things that "government" does best and does better with private sector partnerships, and some things that private sector does better. However, don't make it look like people who work for a University have little value. Unless one thinks that education is not necessary to be a successful democracy.

AnnArBo

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 9:52 p.m.

Lets see..........that guy who works at the University makes 120k, has full benefits, full retirement all of which comes from taxes that are siphoned from the private sector, not from the fruits of any reasearch he does if it even bares fruit, he works at the universtiy that has buildings, infrastructure, employees and facitlities that again are all funded by huge tax payer dollars and other than the football program don't come close to self funding these institutions. All we need to do is open a hamburger stand, and hope he stops by and buys a burger to give us our tax dollars back. It's exactly this "government runs the economy thru it's benevolent investments" that has us 14 trillion in debt and climbing. If your scenario worked as a sucessful economic model, we should all just work at the university, or for the government, but whoops...............who would we tax to pay us...............oh I forgot we can just print the money.

Mark

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 6:58 p.m.

Let's see, person has because of governmental agency. Makes $120K per year. Fruit of his/her work leads to advances in drug therapy for some syndrome. University makes $ from patent; Pharma makes money from drug. Hospitals make $, health insurance company makes $. Stockholders of Pharma make $. And you tell me that government does not create wealth. On top of that, researcher that makes $120K/yr spends money in town, has mortgage, buys cars, pays for child care, etc. Even stops at said hamburger stand to buy burger that was made cheaper by farm subsidies where meat is cheaper than selling a soy burger. Meanwhile, said CEO of Pharma who made 4 million in salary, and didn't invent anything, but was good at closing recently improved research facility in tree town, costing hundreds of jobs and loss of tax-base gets off the hook because he's a CEO, responsible only to the shareholders. Because of his lawyers and access to lobbyists, gets a deal that allows him to declare some minimal part of his earnings as taxable, and the rest sits in off-shore accounts.

AnnArBo

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 6:31 p.m.

You're confusing wages with wealth creation. Government sector jobs are not "created" by supply and demand or economic market forces. They are legislated into existence and funded by taxes, what we currently have due to a lagging economy, is a mantra to raise taxes to support these jobs (taking wealth away from those who actually create to fund non efficient government programs) . That's a lot different than a company that has to produce something efficiently, market it, and profit from it to survive, they can't simply raise taxes to continue. Government jobs are a drain on the economy, because they are funded by taxes, not fruits of production, and they don't make more than they take (wealth creation).

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 5:44 p.m.

The key, Mark, to believing such statements is NOT thinking. For, if one were to actually, THINK, they would reject such nonsense out-of-hand. Good Night and Good Luck

AnnArBo

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 4:10 p.m.

All you people who put so much faith in government to solve everything amaze me. Look at our countries current situation fiscally and economically. Look at Europe, that has looked to government to solve social problems thru government "help". How can you want more government when historically our govenment has been a huge failure in solving the problems it tackles. The EU has just completed a study that shows government spending and intervention is the real problem, and the cause of huge deficits and debt that cripples the economy. And now you want that same model here.............thanks goodness you all are in the 20% minority that think we are on the right track.

Mark

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 7:16 p.m.

You are confusing politics with the function of government.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 5:43 p.m.

"The EU has just completed a study that shows government spending and intervention is the real problem, and the cause of huge deficits and debt that cripples the economy. And now you want that same model here." Could you link that "study", please, so that we might draw our own conclusions about what it might say? GN&GL

Bcar

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 12:24 p.m.

Socialism works until you run out of other peoples' money...

towny

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 5:52 a.m.

Place the money supply back into the hands of congress and the people. What? Congress is the government and a huge part of the problem. Congress is as corrupt as any part. I liked your article and agreed with most except the above mentioned. This is a capitalist society. Sorry, everyone has an opportunity to get rich. Your choice. So why does everyone constantly put down the rich.

talker

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 5:22 a.m.

In some comments here and in comments elsewhere, there's insistence of cutting spending. Again and again I read general comments about where to cut spending and it's often in an area the writer doesn't need, but not in an area important to the writer. Please be specific about what you want to cut and by how much. Do you want to refuse to pay the enormous debts we have from fighting in Iraq? Yes, we need to tap the richest for more money. When the U.S. sends military members to war, the U.S. accepts the long range responsibility of caring for the veterans. That means things such as surgery, prostheses, psychological help for those with PTSD (post traumatic stress syndrome), lifetime care for many thousands. These needs must be met. Vouchers won't fulfill the promise. Moving on to those infrastructure jobs that some belittle. Family members of those who died when a major bridge collapsed in Minnesota don't belittle the need to repair bridges. In other areas, lives were spared when decrepit bridges could be shut down before any loss of life. Construction workers are available now. They need jobs and bridges, roads, schools, etc. need to be repaired. If we looked for direct connections between providing services and creating money, we'd way undervalue the work of the teachers who taught math and reading to people who became Wall Street bankers and corporate officers. I fear this rhetoric will go further in praising a half million dollar salary of a doctor to the wealthiest, while there are complaints that some Federal employees (including V.A. primary care physicians and NIH (National Institutes of Health) researchers earn (gasp) over $100,000. The tendency is to match the value of providers who teach, heal, and defend to the economic value of the people they treat. This solidifies the status of more highly trained people and strengthens the middle class.

Arborcomment

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 11:46 p.m.

Sorry, forgot web site: <a href="http://www.third way.org/taxreceipt" rel='nofollow'>www.third way.org/taxreceipt</a>

Arborcomment

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 11:44 p.m.

Here you go, From the Washington Post. David Kendal, senior fellow for health and fiscal policy and Third Way (Center Left Think Tank) and Ethan Porter, contributing editor at Democracy Journal created a web application. You punch in what you paid in federal taxes, it shows you by line item, how much of your taxes go to each spending item. Two senators and one representative (bi-partisan) are sponsoring legislation ton provide just such a receipt with each electronically filed return. Example: middle class family, $50k income, $6,883 in taxes. Where $6,883 goes: Defense $1375 Social security $1335 Medicare $846 Low income assistance $617 Medicaid $509 Net interest payments $433 Unemployment compensation $363 Veterans affairs $230 Education $211 Law enforcement/homeland security $173 Transportation $168 Health (not Medicare/Medicaid) $137 Enviornmental protection/natural resources $72 Managing federal employees/buildings $62 Agriculture $57 Space/science $50 Housing/community planning $48 Trade/economic development $43 Foreign aid $43 Social services $41 Energy $38 Workplace safety/rights $37 Internal Revenue Service $28 Diplomacy/embassies $27 Statistics/weather $26 Telecommunications $21 Native Americans $16 Post Office $12 Congress $10 Arts and culture $5 District of Columbia $2 White house $1 Credit: bailout, payback/financial regulation/currency -156 This is for tax year 2010. Cut, slice, move away.

Dog Guy

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 4:47 a.m.

Contrary to above comments, for most of the history of our republic infrastructure creation was done by group private enterprise: roads, harbors, canals, railroads, schools, colleges, hospitals, fire protection, poor relief, et cet. Most of this work was done by Presbyterian Scots. (Full disclosure: I am neither Presbyterian nor Scot.)

Art Godfrey

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 12:29 a.m.

My compliments to Ben Colmery for his essay, a comprehensive summary of the mess we're in. It is sad that no matter how plainly stated, some still cling to the notion that there is a simple solution. All we have to do is...tax the rich, or whatever is the flavor of the day. Because the US government is already so large, some think it unrealistic to reduce its size by a significant amount. The large government is a self-fulfilling prophecy. I for one, in my seventh decade, have gotten nothing from the Departments of Education, Energy, or Commerce. So why can't we eliminate these jobs? What I have gotten from my earliest days is help from family and friends. It doen't take a village to raise a child, it takes PARENTS, preferably two, and extended family. No government bureaucracy can hold a candle to that. In any event, the discussion is all misguided. WE CAN'T AFFORD THE SIZE AND EXTENT OF THIS GOVERNMENT, as Ben tries to point out. So why try to perpetuate it. Having trouble believing this? Take a look at Europe. The politicians singing from the tax-the-rich songbook are assuming the voters won't actually check the numbers, but will vote to keep them in office. I wish everyone would do themselves 2 favors, First, depend on yourself instead of blowhard politicians promising what they can't deliver. Second, put pencil to paper with real numbers that test the conclusions you hear from any politicians. This takes work but you'll soon be able to make better decisions. Besides, helping yourself feels good and just might be habit-forming.

David Paris

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 10:20 p.m.

His arguments are full of holes, but the last sentence takes the cake: "But wait, the Tea Party has already done this -- without the violence." From Ben Colmery III's point of view; shame on the occupy movement for sitting in the path of pepper spray! Every time a person expresses sympathy for the one percent as Mr Colmery has done here they just demonstrate how misinformed Fox News has made them, and support all the data that points to the ill-informed Fox Populace. The title of this piece should simply be: I Don't Get It!

Mike K

Wed, Dec 14, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.

If you don't do what the government tells you to do, you will be compelled.

Andrew Smith

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:47 p.m.

The "occupy" movement is correct to the extent that they disparage the bailouts given to banks and other industry groups. What Colmery calls 'crony capitalism' is indeed responsible for many of our current problems. The best alternative to "crony capitalism" is "free market capitalism" - the distinction is somewhat subtle, but crucial. In a truly free market, if a bank or corporation gets itself into trouble, the government should stand back and let it collapse. It will be an object lesson about what works - and the next wave of entrepreneurs will learn from it and create more successful businesses, employing more citizens at better wages!

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 6:50 p.m.

When you talk about a transfer of wealth, please include the taxpayer paid $trillion$ bank and corporate bailouts, tax breaks, corporate subsidies and Wall St bonuses on the plus side of ledger of the ultra rich and corporations. Who was President and which party was in power when the 2007 crash occurred? The Wall Street party and the people who love them.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 8:21 p.m.

Yes, indeed. The demise of Glass-Steagall is proof of several things: 1) That large segments of BOTH parties have drunk the "small government" Kool Aid. 2) That the banking regulations enacted under the New Deal served to provide the longest period (nearly 70 years) in our nation's history without a financial collapse (had happened, on average, every 20 years up to 1933). 3) That lacking effective regulation of business, businessmen will pursue practices antithetical to their own interests and to those of the nation, with the result that an unwilling and often ignorant nation will be dragged down the whole with them. Good Night and Good Luck

Hot Sam

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 9:49 p.m.

The demise of Glass Steagall actually began in the 60's... <a href="http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/shows/wallstreet/weill/demise.html</a>

Hot Sam

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:59 p.m.

I have no bubble to burst...I'm not the one lost in a partisan fog...yes the end of Glass Steagall...signed into law by Bill Clinton was huge...and shows the bipartisan problem we have. Our problem is big government...via both parties...

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:45 p.m.

Hate to burst your bubble but there were plenty of Republicans in there too and the mess really started with Republican Senator Phil Gramm when he headed the Banking Committee. <a href="http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1877351_1877350_1877330,00.html</a> Please check the entire list for hints on who when where and why. Wall Street places spreads its bets around usually with the best reward to risk ratio. President Obama proved it.

Hot Sam

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.

"""Who was President and which party was in power when the 2007 crash occurred? The Wall Street party and the people who love them.""" Your right...the Democrats controlled congress...where the spending occurs...at that time...they also received the most money from Wall Street in the 08 election cycle...

glacialerratic

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:29 p.m.

The penalties resulting from the deregulation that allowed the unprecedented concentration of wealth and consolidation of global financial markets are being paid by those who have lost their homes, their jobs, and are witnessing the social and economic decline of their communities. This is powerfully disheartening and demoralizing. This opinion piece, and many comments, are grappling to understand and explain what is happening. It is inevitable that some are grabbing on to utopian beliefs, partial facts, and painfully inadequate understandings of the nature of this transformation. It is not coincidental that the consolidation of capital and the strengthening of its pervasive influence on political leadership is taking place when unions are in steep decline and as workers, small business owners, and middle-class professionals feel afraid, isolated and wholly dependent on forces they cannot control or understand.

pbehjatnia

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:22 p.m.

Well said. Thank you.

1bit

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.

This opinion is revisionist history nonsense. It ignores facts for the false notion that government, which is us by the way, is incapable of accomplishing anything. It flies in the face of our forefathers who came together to form this great country. The Articles of Confederation did not work. Concentrating wealth in the hands of a few will breed, and has bred, social unrest. And those who ignore history are doomed to repeat it.

Huron 74

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.

I need to reply to Mike K's reply to my post: First of all, I do not side with the left or the right, I am for fairness. Call it "social justice", that's fine. But why do I pay a higher percentage of tax than others? People say the rich need tax breaks to create jobs. Who's to say that if I had been paying 10% over all these years instead of 35% that I wouldn't have bought or started a business that would create jobs? Look at all of the current billionaires who started out small, (Meijer, a barbershop, Dominos, one pizza parlor). Personally, I think the poor should be getting more tax breaks. I have always been astounded by the fact that a poor single mother is taxed on her meager income (such as waitress tips!) and then given food stamps. That, friends, is stupid.

Mike K

Wed, Dec 14, 2011 : 6:06 p.m.

I (our household) pay a damn high % as well, and living a relatively simple life, I don't have a ton of deductions to lower it. I feel like the middle class gravy train when it comes to income taxes. I think the last time I added it up, it was damn near $50,000 in compulsory (that's key) taxes. If we paid, say half, I could use $25,000 to either save, or spend locally (e.g. Fingerle Lumber). Or start a business as you suggest. So what I would like is to be taxed LESS. % aside, the rich do pay a lot (in absolute $$$) currently. I agree that people under a certain wage should be EXEMPT from income tax.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:25 p.m.

Privatize the profit. Socialize the risk.

Hot Sam

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

Government involvement in the economy is like a blue hair with Florida plates driving in the left lane... They need to create and fairly enforce a just set of rules, and then get out of the way...

Hot Sam

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 6:44 p.m.

Hopin' so JC!

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:58 p.m.

Was and is Dr Colmery a member of any teachers union? Does any of his MSU salary go into the state teachers pension fund? Does Dr Colmery collect a state teachers pension or plan to?

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:34 p.m.

"But wait, the Tea Party has already done this -- without the violence." To the delight of Conservatives, The Tea Party poisoned the well of political discourse through it's strident hate speech. Have we forgotten the cross hairs in Sarah Palin's advertising? Shouts of "kill him" against Obama the candidate? Constant drum beat of hate against liberals and President Obama that led to the shooting of Gabrielle Giffords?

justcurious

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 6:10 p.m.

Oh please, there is enough blame to go around for all politicians and political parties. Why bother?

Arborcomment

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:56 p.m.

Hut hut, don't forget the grassy knoll and area 51.

Hot Sam

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:28 p.m.

These comments are not only hateful and inaccurate, they display a level of ignorance regarding the Tea Party, it's people, and what they stand for that is paramount.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:13 p.m.

Everybody knows that psychotic people are easily influenced to do crazy things. Investigation into Gifford's assailants motives and what he was reading at the time proves as much.

Mike K

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:04 p.m.

Gabrielle Giffords? I thought we all knew that wasn't politically motivated? Hut Hut, you hate for the Tea Party is political. Face it, they won seats in the house because many related to their political agenda. Will there be OWS candidates? Will they win seats?

Mike K

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:23 p.m.

I guess one can always try. There used to be a time when the private sector generated tax revenue through employment and commerce, and the government consumed these tax dollars accordingly, but now the left wants the tax system to administer their idea of "social justice". The sad part is that Obama, our President, is out there daily inciting the masses to believe this. It's demogoguery and it is sad. Liberals wants a liberal (generously applied) use of government in our lives. Conservatives want a conservative (wisely applied) use of government in our lives. I would agree that the liberalization of the federal government has indeed complicated things.

Mark Wilson

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 3:03 a.m.

If only there were conservatives in politics who were in favor of a smaller government. Alas, there are not. Witness the explosion in spending under GWB.

babmay11

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 7:15 p.m.

Wow, your definitition of conservative = "wise"? I think it's a lot closer to "stingy" or "meager"

Huron 74

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.

"This one percent paid 38% of the income tax revenue in 2008." Hmmm.. let's check another source. I got the following data from an article at this link: <a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38045345/what-warren-buffett-made-and-paid-in-taxes-in-2010/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-505123_162-38045345/what-warren-buffett-made-and-paid-in-taxes-in-2010/</a> "As a share of total income and taxes paid in the U.S. in 2008, here's what the 400 wealthiest households contributed: 13.1 percent of all capital gains 4.6 percent of all dividend income 3.6 percent of all taxable interest 1.3 percent of the value of all itemized deductions 1.3 percent of total adjusted gross income 0.15 percent of all salaries and wages 5.2 percent of all charitable deductions Add it all up, and in 2008 the total tax bill for the 400 wealthiest was $19.6 billion, accounting for 1.9 percent of all the income tax collected by the IRS." Wow, 1.9 is a long way from 38! Beware of "statistics" folks, they can be made to make anything look right. When Warren Buffet stepped up to the plate and told us all that he was only paying taxes at about 10% of his gross income, I think there is still somthing wrong here. I pay over 35% and have since long before 2008. I have check stubs to prove it.

Mark Wilson

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 3:01 a.m.

"1.9 is a long way from 38!" Your math is off, way off. If 400 is 1% of the households, then there is a total of 40,000 in this country.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 6:45 p.m.

When you talk about a transfer of wealth, please include the $trillion$ bank and corporate bailouts, tax breaks, corporate subsidies and Wall St bonuses on the plus side of ledger of the ultra rich and corporations.

Mike K

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.

There are lots of citations. <a href="http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/" rel='nofollow'>http://www.factcheck.org/2008/05/top-1-what-they-make-and-pay/</a> The fact is that there is ALREADY a sizeable transfer or wealth (in the form of money) from the rich. <a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/" rel='nofollow'>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/09/fact-check-the-richtheir-secretaries-and-taxes/</a> The tax system is supposed to be used to generate revenue for government operations. Why is now supposed to be used for "social justice". <a href="http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1" rel='nofollow'>http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/taxes/story/2011-09-20/buffett-tax-millionaires/50480226/1</a> I can believe that with all the problems we have today, that the focus of the left remains squarely on 1% of the people in the US. It's like the biggest thing the left has to do is tax these individuals more. I wonder, if they were to succeed, what would be next?

tom

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:18 p.m.

"And even though homeownership is at near-record highs, we've got too many of our fellow citizens who happen to be minorities who don't own a home. Seventy-five percent of the Anglos in America own a home. The minority homeownership in America is below 50 percent. And it seems like to me we've got to do something about it. If it's good for America that people own a home, we want people from all walks of life owning their own home. "And so I let out a goal. I said over the next decade, we want there to be 5.5 million new minority homeowners. That's why Mel is here. He helped set the goal. He is going to help implement the Federal policy I'm about to describe to you about how to meet that goal. Last year, we did a pretty good job. There's now 809,000 new minority homeowners in America. And that's positive for the country. It's good for the economy. It's also good for the spirit of our country that more people are owning a home. "But here are some of the things that we intend to do, and we discussed today earlier. Sometimes people have trouble finding the downpayment for a home. It makes them nervous when they hear the downpayment. We need to have a down-payment fund to help people with downpayments if they qualify. The Congress -- the House passed my request for $200 million a year. It's stuck in the Senate. The Senate needs to act. If they're interested in closing the minority homeowner-ship gap, they need to act on the downpayment fund. -George W. Bush, October 15, 2003 in Dinuba, California -- per capital income of $11,566, and the epitome of the state's eventual housing meltdown.

say it plain

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:47 p.m.

I think @hut hut has it exactly correct in her/his reply to @tom's post above. The Bush years saw the kinds of de-regulations and secret nods to the Big Finance Companies, along with a continuation of the total disregard for the possible consequences of irresponsible global-finance practices that had been started earlier under Clinton's (Greenspan's!) tenure, that blew up and then burst the consumer credit bubble. The opinion writer is touching on the real problem, even as he identifies it as 'crony capitalism' in a way that seems to suggest that bridges aren't 'valuable' in a thread of logic I just don't follow. Thus, he claims the Occupy Wall Street movement is misguided. But, actually, they have it right in where they place the blame--even as blame should also be placed on our government's support for Wall Street. It's not bridge building that got us in trouble. The 'stimulus' money has been a bad attempt (at least the *consumer* stimulus monies! the bridges need replacing!) at fixing the broken pieces of the housing/credit bubble bursting. The Bush administration tried to get us past 9/11 by telling us it was our patriotic duty to go shopping. And to keep up on the buying and selling of houses ...the worst of the bubble inflation happened post-2001. For a while the realtor sales-people, the construction and installation people, the mortgage industry people, and the American consumer shared in the wealth with the Banksters who made out *for real*. After the collapse, the Banksters *still* did okay, because their machinations made it so that the *whole charade of a system* was in danger of failing if their bluffs were called in real time. We had to pretend there was something akin to a hurricane blowing in and knocking down the financial levies...but the problem was there *were no levies* to protect the system at all. But we've moved on now, mostly ignoring the still-present problems, because at least the banks and big corporations are 'saved', phew!

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:06 p.m.

Bush pushed home ownership because it benefited his backers. Big Banks. Their manipulation of the housing market by making loans to those who could not pay, yet saw dreams of home ownership as promised by Bush made trillions for th banks but cost those low income people everything and the rest of us were thrown into a depression. The resulting bad mortgages were a big part of the financial meltdown. Now we're paying for his transfer of wealth to his backers

The_Ghost_is_Demented

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:35 p.m.

Hayek spoke 'to the socialists of all parties'.

Gorc

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:17 p.m.

Ghost - your choosing sides and pointing fingers is an attitude that is part of the problem. Both the Democratic and Republican parties want to gain more power and influence over the other side. They will continue to do this in order to advance their own agenda. And if you want to continue to be a "lemming" to help advance the left's out of contol spending go ahead....it's your right to do so. Our nation is at a precipice of financially imploding. And if you think life is hard now, wait until you see the sacrifices needed to crawl of that mess. What is happening in Europe is a window of the future of what WE might go through if both parties remain selfish.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 11:41 p.m.

"And if you are making the comparison that after WW2 our nation's economy benefited due to government spending, we are not in the same position today. You are far off the mark. We are at war today and all the money our government is spending on our military and stimilus packages had not made any significant difference with people filing first time unemployment insurance claims." Wrong. All of that spending (and the "stimulus" was much too small as a % of GDP to have a substantial impact) saved or created 8 million jobs in late 2008 and early 2009 (and that does not include military spending). The source is John Zandi, a noted CONSERVATIVE economist: <a href="http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.economy.com/mark-zandi/documents/End-of-Great-Recession.pdf</a> His report is above. If you think him wrong, I'd be interested in an explanation? Facts? Methodology? Both? Me? I took my economics classes at the United States Military Academy. You? GN&GL

Gorc

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:58 p.m.

Whether it's federal, state, or local government; the responsibility of handling finances are exactly the same concepts as someone's personal budget. Don't spend money you don't have. And if you are making the comparison that after WW2 our nation's economy benefited due to government spending, we are not in the same position today. You are far off the mark. We are at war today and all the money our government is spending on our military and stimilus packages had not made any significant difference with people filing first time unemployment insurance claims. So I hope the economic classes you recommend for me take are not the 1950's version you are stuck in. So keep pointing fingers and accept the status quo from both the Democratic and Republic agendas and see how we will continue to be in this mess for the next decade and more. Good night and I wish us all luck.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.

A nation's finances and a household's finances do not operate the same way. Time for a class in macroeconomics. Our debt to DGP ratio is the second highest in our nation's history. The highest happened in WW2, and that government spending fueled an economic expansion that lasted nearly a decade. Fact. <a href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg" rel='nofollow'>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:US_Federal_Debt_as_Percent_of_GDP_by_President.jpg</a> Time to stop mainlining Faux Noise. GN&GL

Gorc

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:01 p.m.

How can you say that our nation is not in financial dire straits. Either you are completely blind or naive. Can you even comprehend how large of $15,000,000,000,000 is or what it would take elminate that debt. This a result of both parties irresponsibility. I would hate to see what your household finances are like.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:36 p.m.

Our nation is not at the precipice. Our nation is not Greece. Our nation is not Europe. The biggest difference: we are a fiscal and a monetary union. They are only a monetary union. Don't understand the difference? Take a good econ class. In the meantime, time to stop watching Faux Noise. And the degree to which our nation is in a fiscal crisis is a product of BushII and the Republicans. He inherited as government with surplusses projected well into the future. There was concern--yes, CONCERN--that those surpluses mean a reduced needed to US T-Bills and that that would harm global markets. Well, Bush II took care of that. So, yes, I blame Bush II and his Republicans (and those Democrats who foolishly supported him). Facts are facts. And of course conservatives would prefer to ignore those facts (as they ignore many, many others). And the lemmings let 'em get away with it. GN&GL

Dog Guy

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:13 p.m.

Ann Arbor is not a place for discussing economics. The tax-supported residents of this city assume Marxism: only labor has value; class identity and class struggle are natural. Schooled in false history and Keynes, Ann Arborites would support a Kim Jong-il if the checks kept coming. The basic problem of our republic is that people who receive tax benefits are now allowed to vote. We are like hogs at the trough and do not deserve the name of citizens. (Full disclosure: I am a lifelong tax parasite.)

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.

"For over half the history of our republic public employees could not vote." Citation, please? Otherwise, you're just makin' it up. GN&GL

Dog Guy

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 4:39 a.m.

My thanks for the two replies to my comments on Ann Arborites' Marxist class-warfare assumptions and schooling in false history: Q.E.D. For over half the history of our republic public employees could not vote. (In Republic, Plato and Aristotle required that those receiving public benefits should not be enfranchised lest they vote themselves further benefits.)

demistify

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 10:12 p.m.

"The basic problem of our republic is that people who receive tax benefits are now allowed to vote" That sounds like you are advocating abolishing democracy. Do you want to go back to the early days of the republic when only property owners were allowed to vote?

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:29 p.m.

You do realize that the author of this letter is a "tax-supported" citizen and a recipient of "wealth transfer," don't you? Naaaaaaaaaaaah. One would actually have to read the entire piece to know that. GN&GL

Gill

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:11 p.m.

Again, the root problem to most of the worlds issues is overpopulation. The are only so many necessary jobs required in an industrialized world. The rest become unnecessary fluff work.

Silly Sally

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.

I do not like the disparaty in wealth and incomes. The answer is not change via taxes. THe answer is to not outsource manfacturing and to import poor immigrants with no education. This decreases the number of high paying jobs and increases the number of low skilled labor, driving down the value of the working class, and then the middle cl;ass. And, not everyone can be highly educated.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:49 p.m.

Capitalists here and elsewhere do not want to pay people for the value of their work. It cuts into their profits. Most of us, primarily the middle and working class, is paying the social cost of capitalism through our desire for lower cost goods and services. We've been spoiled by this and do not want to know or understand the REAL COST of goods and services. If we want good paying jobs for real work in our country we will have to pay for them in wages high enough to support our lifestyles.

Daniel Soebbing

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:08 p.m.

Thanks, John Galt. Transportation infrastructure is crumbling in this country. Whether or not the economic stimulus will actually create needed jobs or help to end the recession, many of the construction projects help to fix roads and bridges that civil engineers have identified as needing repairs or replacement. No private citizens are going to buy bridges or roads. That's why we need government to invest in infrastructure.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.

The rules for the capitalist game as played here in the USA were and are written by lobbyists and legislators bought and paid for by the capitalists. So the rules are naturally skewed in their favor. Like Vegas, if you want to gamble in high stakes capitalist game and have the chance to make lots of money without working, you have to ANTE UP. All the 99% is asking for is that those who strike it rich based on the rules written by legislators and lobbyists is that you PAY TO PLAY. Taxes is what you ANTE UP to PLAY. The difference is that not everyone can play at the high stakes table. Those who don't, can't and want to play at the high stakes table should not have to ANTE UP the same as the people who play at the high stakes table. Taxes are what we ANTE UP. You want to get rich playing with the big dogs? ANTE UP! All working people want is a level playing field, where everyone plays by the same rules, gets treated the same and has the same opportunity. Unfortunately, the rules are skewed and the access to capital and opportunity is controlled by the high stakes players.

Liberty Soule

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:55 p.m.

Well said, we're in the financial mess not because we don't pay enough in taxes. We're in this mess because our governments, local and federal spend too much. Stimulus money eventually dries up. We need sustainable jobs and businesses, not temporary government created businesses.

Mark Wilson

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 2:55 a.m.

I wish that I could vote for this post twice.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:27 p.m.

Government does this during times of depression and recession until the private sector gets its act together again. If government didn't pump some tax dollars back into the economic system through "stimulus", the depression or recession would be longer and much much deeper. Ask Japan about their lost decade.

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:50 p.m.

I have read for years the back and forth over who does and who doesn't pay most of the taxes. What i know to be true is that on April 16 every year, after we all "pay up" the rich are still rich and the poor are still poor. So there isn't some mass redistribution of wealth in our tax system. That is not to say the system couldn't be improved.

Ron Granger

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.

The federal government will always be "corrupt". It is controlled by wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals. That will not likely change. The wealthy need to pay their share of the taxes. Taxing individuals at upwards of 30% while the wealthy enjoy rates of only 15% (plus exclusive tax reduction strategies) is an example of the control and influence they have.

ribs1

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:35 p.m.

Dr Colmery for president.

The_Ghost_is_Demented

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:19 p.m.

wow, folks in a college town not understanding how government institutions (e.g., a university) work and making assumptions about facts. I am shocked! it is not clear as an adjunct faculty member that any money was necessarily received.

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.

of course he will take $1 a year salary.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:51 p.m.

President of Hypocrites of America? He was on the government "dole". He was a recipient of "wealth transfer." By his logic, he ought pay back every penny he ever received. GN&GL

hroark

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:32 p.m.

Mr. Colmery states too many false premises to effectively address in a short space, and makes the false distinction between the federal government and "we". He states "Taxing the rich will not solve our problems"; however, not taxing the rich (mainly since 1981 starting with Reagan) at a sufficient and fair rate has contributed significantly to the $14 trillion in debt accumulated since then. The 38% of federal income tax paid by the top 1% is more reflective of the enormous amount of income they receive than of an excessively high tax rate. The average effective tax rate for the Forbes 400 highest income earners is about 17%. The small percentage of federal income taxes paid by the bottom 50% reflects the fundamental structure of our tax system, in which subsistence levels of income are taxed at low or zero rates. The "tea party" doesn't have a clue, and most definitely will not solve our problems.

sh1

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.

A commenter here says, "many commenters here simply want and demand they are given others people wealth." I'm trying to find those comments...

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:38 p.m.

You might start with Mr. Colmery, since he was on the faculty at MSU for many years. Funny (looking at replies to mine above) how the usual suspects don't see the hypocrisy in his logic. GN&GL

Brad

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:20 p.m.

I think what's missing here is any mention of the connection between those with a larger capacity for "free speech" (money) and many of the problems with government. Do you think government is just that incompetent, or could it possibly be that those with a lot of influence are influencing it to their own advantage instead of the population as a whole? Think "Citizens United". Money buys influence, period. And more money buys more influence. At some level it's all about greed.

C. S. Gass

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:16 p.m.

Ben, brilliant. Of course few of the seething liberals in this town will applaud you for your clarity. They like their politics murky warm and bitter, like the espresso they swill in the coffee shops in which they plot and scheme. The rich are under no obligation of 'social contract' as the left would claim, to carry others on their backs. Where is this 'social contract'? I never signed it. And by the way, I'm not rich. Nor, really do I wish to be. To be so today seems to make one a target. Sadly there are few people who hold your correct view. And many more who demand that wealth be 'redistributed'. This cannot last for long.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:15 p.m.

There is a social contract in this country. E Pluribus Unum.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:27 p.m.

" . . . few of the seething liberals in this town will applaud you for your clarity." Clarity, is it? Looks like hypocrisy, to me since, as a MSU faculty member, he was a recipient of that wealth transfer and which he rails. Good Night and Good Luck

stunhsif

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:10 p.m.

Sad to see but not suprising Dr. Colmery, that many commenters here simply want and demand they are given others people wealth. Unless one is fortunate to have generational wealth, it then was earned the hard way through education, risk taking and by sacrificing immediate fun and gratification for a better life down the road. That can mean driving older cars, delaying having children until you can afford them, etc. I joke and tell my wife that " I would do rich proud and be very good at it ", but alas, I am firmly entrenched in the middle class and that is no ones fault but my own. I didn't go medical school, I didn't become a veterinarian like Dr. Colmery and I have never risked any of my own money setting up a private practice as he has done. I gave up many years ago being envious of those that have more than I do. Yes, I would love to have a Corvette ZL1 and I would love to have a beach house in some warm climate right now. But here I am, stuck in cold and snowy Michigan driving an old Saab with the understanding that I will probably have to work until I die and quite frankly, I am ok with that ! Go Green Go White

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:09 p.m.

Demented: Adjunct or full-time, Colmery's entire career has been enmeshed with taxpayer-funded public institutions. Using the positions in his own article, his entire work life would be considered subsidized by the government and a distortion of the free market. His field wouldn't even exist if not for the type of government involvement in the economy that he argues against. That's a stunning lack of self-awareness of his part but, hey, it's always someone else feeding off the government, right?

The_Ghost_is_Demented

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:09 p.m.

kindly read more closely and carefully. adjunct professors (often distinguished on a CV by the word 'adjunct' and overlapping professional positions in their employment chronology--both of which are in this CV) are affiliated faculty who lend specific areas of expertise to an academic department, and the university is usually not their principal employment venue. in fact, many times these are uncompensated positions. wanting more government spending does not appear to correlate with understanding its particulars, and to the extent Dr. Colmery's remarks fall on that point, the evidence seems to accumulate.

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:18 p.m.

Bad news stun: the doc isn't quite the rugged, free market individualist that you portray. Much of his career he's been a college prof, one of those people conservatives often deride as overpaid welfare recipients: <a href="http://www.vetdentistry.com/cvitae.html" rel='nofollow'>http://www.vetdentistry.com/cvitae.html</a> Plus, his industry is heavily subsidized through government research. I'm personally fine with vet schools being part of public universities and with the government funding vet research. But that runs counter to his political viewpoint. As Ghost pointed out, the doc doesn't exactly practice what he preaches.

Diagenes

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:09 p.m.

Nice article Ben. A very good defense of the traditional american free market system. Most wealthy people worked very hard for their money; Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, Fred Smith ( founder Fed Ex) Stephen Ross (real estate del. U.M. school of Business) to name a few. They are often major supporters of local charities like hospitals and universities. It is also important to mention that they created thousands of jobs and paid millions in taxes. I wonder how much Sen. John Kerry (D MA) who married into wealth (his wife is the widow of John Heinz) donates to charity. What about Sen. John D. Rockefeller III, (D WV), how much does he pay in income taxes on his inherited wealth? How many jobs have they created? Aside from shovel ready ones. Abraham Lincoln (R IL) said you can not raise up the wage earner by tearing down the wage payer.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 7:59 p.m.

"High taxes and burdensome regulations will inhibit job creation." All evidence to the contrary notwithstanding. The battle cry of modern conservatism: If it's not true, it oughta be. Good Night and Good Luck

1bit

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.

Correct to a point, Diagenes. I do not suppose you are against pesky regulations like child labor laws, environmental protections, etc.

Diagenes

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:10 p.m.

Ed, I may be mistaken in the atribution but the sentiment stands. High taxes and burdensome regulations will inhibit job creation.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:47 p.m.

Nope. Lincoln never said it. <a href="http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp" rel='nofollow'>http://www.snopes.com/quotes/lincoln/prosperity.asp</a> But life would be much simpler were one able to live it by following fictional aphorisms. And Ben Woodruff's quote above IS accurate and can be found at: Selections from the Letters, Speeches, and State Papers of Abraham Lincoln, by Abraham Lincoln, edited by Ida Minerva Tarbell (Ginn, 1911), pg 77. GN&GL Which renders the rest of your post

BenWoodruff

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

And Lincoln also said, "Labor is prior to, and independent of, capital. Capital is only the fruit of labor, and could never have existed if labor had not first existed. Labor is the superior of capital, and deserves much the higher consideration."

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:07 p.m.

From the bio at the end of the article "Ben H. Colmery III is a veterinarian and a long-time resident of Ann Arbor. He is in private practice and has been on the faculty at Michigan State University and on staff at veterinary specialty practices." Mr. Colmery, it is time to practice what you preach. You write: "Federal spending . . . does not generate wealth - it only transfers money from one pocket to another." One would presume, then, that state and university spending does not generate wealth, either. They just transfer wealth. So set the example, sir. Transfer all of the wealth plus interest you were given (certainly you did not earn it) while on the faculty at M-S-U back to the university and or to the state. If you truly oppose all of the wealth transferred by government into the hands of its recipients, it is the only right thing to do. Get off that crack cocaine of the governmental dole, Mr. Colmery. Unless you are prepared to do that, you are little more than a massive self-serving hypocrite. Don'tr worry, we won't be holding our breaths waiting for that to happen. Good Night and Good Luck

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:36 p.m.

It's his logic, boys. Government money is wealth transfer. Period. Don't like the logic? "Talk" to its purveyor. GN&GL

Brad

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:28 p.m.

"Certainly you did not earn it" According to the ghost? Or according to someone who actually knows something of the situation? I've had professional contact with Dr. Colmery on multiple occasions and he is a well-respected and knowledgeable veterinary professional. I may not agree with much of his opinion piece, but that certainly won't cause me to lob any cheap shots in his direction,.

Diagenes

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:24 p.m.

Ed, I do not understand why you attack the messenger and not the message. Mr. (Dr.?) Colmery, I assume, provides a service to MSU for which he is compensated. He earned the money, why should he give it back? No hypocracy. The State of Michigan taxes people and funds public universities. The universities provide a service (education) but do not in themselves produce weath. The money is transfered from tax payers to students in the form of grants, scholarships ect.

fjord

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.

Mr. Colmery correctly pins the blame on a president from the past, but he landed on the wrong one. The origins of this whole mess trace back to Ronald Reagan, not Jimmy Carter.

klondike

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:01 p.m.

"the bridge is not worth anything because no one will buy it." Mr. Colmery: - do the roads that allow you to drive 140 miles round-trip up to Lansing to collect that paycheck have a value? I suppose you are making the walk because the roads have no value to you? - how about an animal shelter that spays/neuters/rescues animals? - how about a local treasure like the Arb? Yes, I suppose someone would buy that and turn it into a development, so it has a value in that sense. But at what cost to the community? Universities do get state funding, so I suppose you'll be giving up that percentage of your paycheck?

Daniel Soebbing

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 12:35 a.m.

You make a good point, Arborcomment. I can't argue with that. I don't think their's anything wrong with a bicycle bridge, but perhaps there would have been a better bang for the buck solution for stimulus money.

Arborcomment

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 10:01 p.m.

Daniel, when there are limited dollars to be used for a "stimulus" one would hope they would be rank ordered on their impact for job growth and common usage. Again, his bicycle bridge example may be too far - if this was funded by a millage voted on by the citizens of A2 - great. Just down the road, there's a factory in Kalamazoo, as the result of the stimulus, and an increase in orders, they avoided lay offs of their blue collar workforce. Well and good, except that price per job "saved" ranges from 78-150k+ depending on your political bias. Their orders increased for: Park Benches. And when orders cease for park benches, our children will be paying for those park benches. And the blue collar workers? Probably laid off. Wouldn't have it been better to take a comprehensive look at infrastructure needs and bang for buck?

Daniel Soebbing

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 9:37 p.m.

First of all, Silly Sally, are you keeping a count on how many people use the bridge? I think you would be surprised by the number of people that commute by bicycle in this city. I was walking the riverside trail that runs through Gallup park a few nights ago and I was passed by over a dozen bicyclists that were presumably commuting home from work. There was ice on the pavement and air temperatures were below thirty degrees. I assume that the number of bike commuters would more than double in nicer weather. Secondly, just because bicycle commuters wouldn't pay a toll to use a bridge doesn't mean that bicycle friendly infrastructure doesn't have intrinsic value. Should we put tolls on every road in the city and eliminate those roads that don't generate sufficient revenue? We could charge entry fees to all of our parks and make our drinking fountains coin operated. Bicycle infrastructure has value because the taxpayers in this city consistently vote to tax themselves to pay for projects that increase the level of bicycle friendly infrastructure and parks. The residents of this city vote to elect politicians that support bicycle friendly infrastructure. That is how we determine what we value in Ann Arbor, it is through our elections. If we didn't value bicycle friendly infrastructure we would have thrown our current mayor out of office years ago.

Silly Sally

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:05 p.m.

If a toll were placed on I-96, it would have a high value. If on the bicyclke bridge over US-23, a very low value of under $5,000, much less than its cost, as few use it.

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:56 p.m.

I would suggest with respect to the housing fiasco the Federal Government never forced anybody to make bad loans or to take out bad loans. It just made it easier to abuse "the system" in the name of greed. It was the greed on all sides, it was the buyers who wanted more house than they could afford or used their equity as an ATM machine. It was the mortgage agents who wanted to sell sell sell to max out their commissions. The Government didn't force anyone to do that, they just stood aside and allowed it.

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:09 p.m.

I stand by my statement in that the Government did NOT force any loans. They certainly did not force bad loans.

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 6:03 p.m.

Yes, they did essentially force those loans. Read the legislation and the debates that occurred when it was created. The foreclosure, by the way, isn't all owner-occupied homes. The legislation encouraged "no-money-down" investment. Essentially, the government backed the concept of people with no money buying houses on margin. Which worked as long as home prices increased. But when they stopped increasing and the ability to sell those investments disappeared, the market collapsed.

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:33 p.m.

Bush vigorously promoted home ownership during his tenure. He called it being part of the "Ownership Society". His financial backers, mortgage and investment bankers benefited. Those "home owners" lost their homes and money. The Bankers got bailed out.

Mike K

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:12 p.m.

They only guarenteed them as part of "policy". Another "visible" hand in what had been a free market. Left to its own devices, these banks would not have likely made these loans. Well never know.

tim

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:49 p.m.

"Federal spending, such as the $700 billion "stimulus package," does not generate wealth - it only transfers money from one pocket to another". Who ever said that the stimulus package was created to create wealth? Maybe Obama was just trying to keep people employed during a collapsing economy that was created by the Republicans. We needed jobs -- roads needed fixing. If history is correct the economy will heal in time regardless of what party is in power.

BenWoodruff

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:02 p.m.

tim, you do realize that just under 40% of that big government stimulus package was in tax cuts, many for businesses...

HappySenior

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:46 p.m.

I agree for the most part. The solution to our economic problem is more people working and paying taxes. This country needs more jobs. Jobs come from new and existing business and from entrepreneurs. The tax structure needs to support job creation, not punish it. How many of us understand the details of the Fair Tax or the Flat Tax? Many politicians are opposed to the Fair Tax because it would eliminate the lobbying industry, and politicians need this source of financial supporters to get reelected. People publicly bemoan the loss of specific government spending for favored programs, without adding the revenue would be coming from a new tax source. Too many of the public speakers we hear are employed by groups that financially benefit from policies the speakers promote. Where is the disclosure? The Obama plan for creating jobs has not worked. The "shovel ready" concept was taken literally, and the money went to road and bridge infrastructure--not projects that create ongoing jobs. The money went to government projects, like building new weather tracking stations. I am in favor of weather tracking. I am in favor of _credible_ information being added to the climate models. But building more weather tracking stations is not a job creator. Are there crooks on Wall Street? Sure. Crooks are everywhere and in all occupations, including unemployed. The government is supposed to protect investors from unscrupulous Wall Street types. Who was in charge of monitoring hedge funds when they went out of control? I believe he is now Sec of the Treasury. We wonder why we are in this mess and then we turn to the people who created the mess to fix it. We deserve the government we have--we voted for these people. We have a president who believe "compromise" means people should do what he tells them to do. We have a Congress who generates hatred among voters. We have political parties who apply despicable labels to people who disagree with the party line. Get out the v

HappySenior

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:49 p.m.

Should end: Get out the vote. 2012

HappySenior

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:47 p.m.

Should end: Get out the vote. 2012

G. Orwell

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:41 p.m.

We need to, for staters, abolish the Federal Reserve, reinstate the Glass-Steagalll Act, stop the wars (money makers for the military-industrial-complex), claw back the money given to banks, eliminate many of the unnecessary federal departments (i.e. EPA, education, IRS), renegotiate all unfair trade agreements, and put a lot of people in jail. like we did after the Lincoln Savings Loan swindle. Then we will have some sense of equality. I would also support eliminating the income tax. Go strictly to sales (not on food products) and corporate taxes (get rid of the loopholes). Use some of the revenue to help the truly needy and fund a few necessary programs. As it is, all the super rich avoid paying taxes with the loopholes they put into the tax code. People like, Warren Buffet, Bill Gates, Ted Turner, etc. All these tax free foundations are tax avoidance ploys. A pure free market capitalist system would create vast prosperity to all.

G. Orwell

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 1:10 p.m.

Peaks and valleys are created by the Federal Reserve that controls the money supply. Easy money creates booms and when they take away the punch bowl, it creates recessions/depressions. Since the private banks control the FR, they make huge profits when there are peaks and valleys. They know when it will happen. Since the FR was created, we have has the great depression, dot.com bubble, housing bubble, and wars.(banks make money when there are wars since governments have to borrow money). Banks favor wars. I do favor some regulations such as no monopolies and regulations such as Glass-Steagall.

Mush Room

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 11:36 a.m.

Pure free capitalist systems create huge economic peaks and valleys and we've many long severe recessions and depressions that prove the point. Capitalism is great, but it needs to be tempered. Sometimes we do a good job of tempering the system and sometimes not. Lately, not! One thing a pure free market capitalist system never does is create vast prosperity to all. However, it's serves the lucky 1% pretty well.

bedrog

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:37 p.m.

While I can agree that "government " can indeed do a better job, the "teaparty" desire to radically downsize-to- eliminate government altogether is preposterous in our ( or any) complex society ...especially if the alternative is to trust in the dubious altruism of the mega -rich. At the same time i can also agree with the notion that "occupy" is no more a cure to certain current governmental pathologies than a thermometer is a to a real illness ( try swallowing one and see where it gets you healthwise!!) "Occupy" is a metaphorical thermometer indicating some sort of malaise...but hardly a real diagnosis or remedy. Ditto the teaparty.

bedrog

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:27 p.m.

@George: in his radical isolationism alone , in a complex, often hostile, but interconnected world , Ron Paul is a complete non -starter and among the silliest of a silly Republican roster..

G. Orwell

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.

"While I can agree that "government " can indeed do a better job, the "teaparty" desire to radically downsize-to- eliminate government altogether is preposterous in our ( or any) complex society ...especially if the alternative is to trust in the dubious altruism of the mega -rich." What Ron Paul is saying is to let the states take care of these functions and keep the money in the states rather then allowing the corrupt federal government to do it. A very good idea. Since the dept. of education was created, it has been down hill ever since. EPA works for big ag and certain inside companies like GE. EPA is actually considering making hay and farm dust pollutants to shut down family owned farms. Look it up. Too much power in the hands of the few is very dangerous. That is what we see today.

sh1

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.

Re: "People are employed and continue to be employed when wealth is created," you're starting with a false premise. Wealthy people get richer by making more money reinvesting the millions they already have, not by paying wages. There is no evidence that wealthy people use dividends or tax breaks to create jobs.

Arborcomment

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 10:53 p.m.

You are absolutely correct, you have provided the info. It shows: 1) wealthy folks invest, poor folks don't. 2) because they invest more, they get more, if their investments are sound. 3) they invest in growth, if they want a profit. 4) growth is jobs, Adobe, Sun, Apple 5) compensation for the wealthy is often stock, or deferred salary

sh1

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 10:05 p.m.

You asked me to show you information to back up my comment that the rich get richer by by investing their money. The IRS data clearly showed that. I've simplified it for you below. While the "average Joe" made 28% of his money outside of his earned wages, the rich make 81.2% that way. Share of total income by source, filers reporting $10 million or more Year Wages and salaries Interest, dividends, rent Capital gains Business income 2008 18.8% 22.1% 45.4% 18.7% Share of total income by source, all filers Year Wages and salaries Interest, dividends, rent Capital gains Business income 2008 72.0% 8.1% 5.6% 7.5%

Arborcomment

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 8:45 p.m.

Please try again. While the "Slack Wire" blog entry uses IRS data, your point is rightly disputed in the first comment right below the blog: "In any case the figures are deceptive. Does the manager of Sun, or Microsoft, or Apple make their income from capital gains? But yes of course. But does it mean they are not really being compensated for their skills? Not unless you count stock options and the like in terms of executive compensation non-human capital based income.". The chart provided by Slack Wire author shows income share by source for filers reporting $10m or more in capital gains dropping 12.8% from 2000 to 2008. The largest drop in any income or any category. I would think this would make you very happy but does little to prove your points. And since you like Slack Wire, commentors on Econ-jobs.com (professional job search and discussion site) rate Slack as "worst economic site". Agenda is referenced.

sh1

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 7:24 p.m.

Arborcomment, here is the answer to your question: <a href="http://slackwire.blogspot.com/2010/07/where-do-rich-get-their-money.html" rel='nofollow'>http://slackwire.blogspot.com/2010/07/where-do-rich-get-their-money.html</a>. The IRS keeps track of this sort of thing, you know.

Arborcomment

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:34 p.m.

Please let us know where those "reinvesting the millions they already have, not by paying wages" investment clubs or secret societies are. Do you mean Buffet and Hackshire investments? They own railroads etc. Perhaps you are referring to currency trading? Like Soros? MF Global and the advisor extraordiaire to the Obama administration Corzine? Get a clue. Two UT economics professors did a study on the 1% and where they live. Three counties in the United States are home to the majority of the 1%. You think maybe New York and nasty Wall Street? Wrong. Two counties in California, and one in Washington State. Home to silicon valley and Microsoft respectively. Now tell us what poor deprived backwaters those counties are or the entire US economy for that matter because Tech and Internet moguls, and their investors, have some kind of perpetual money cycle of money in, more money out without creating jobs.

justcurious

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

I would blame the Federal Reserve and those above it. The private Federal Reserve rules the Government and thus rules us. We are like a bunch of puppets dancing to their whims. But they too dance to the whims of those above them. Follow the money.

braggslaw

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:27 p.m.

I blame Freddie and Fannie for a large portion of the toxic assets that poisoned the financial system Giving loans to people who were never going to pay them back was insanity

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Mon, Dec 12, 2011 : 3:14 a.m.

Let's just be clear here: braggslaw's link provides not a single piece of evidence to support his assertion--though it does mention President Bush II's push to have an ownership society. GN&GL

1bit

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 6:42 p.m.

"less regulation" sounds great. Which regulations? Most are there for a reason. I like child labor laws. I like that businesses cannot pollute our environment. If you ask Alan Mullaly at Ford, he'd welcome the federal government making regulations more standardized rather than dealing with piecemeal state government regulations. Yet, some in government are taking the even more ridiculous tact of not funding the regulators. Yes, there is a balance between regulation and over-regulation. But the basis of the current Great Recession are on the backs of both Democrats and Republicans who got rid of Glass-Steagall and those who followed Greenspan's march into delusion. It is on all of our backs, actually, because we elected them.

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:59 p.m.

Yes, many of us want less regulation. But this was a case where the legislation and regulation itself caused the mess. In a free market, GMAE and FMAC would never have made those loans.

1bit

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:19 p.m.

I am amused and disappointed by those who both want less regulation and then decry the consequences.

braggslaw

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:15 p.m.

<a href="http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/the-end-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/" rel='nofollow'>http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/02/the-end-of-fannie-mae-and-freddie-mac/</a>

hut hut

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:24 p.m.

Bush 2 vigorously promoted home ownership as part of "Ownership Society". ALL mortgage lenders loved it. In the end his scam benefitted his financial benefactors, Big Banks who sold bad mortgages and crazy investment schemes then got bailed out by the rest of the taxpayers. Again.

Silly Sally

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:03 p.m.

I agree, but please "braggslaw", post a link

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:49 p.m.

And I blame moonbeams from Mars. Just about as much evidence of that as the cause. GN&GL

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:41 p.m.

The feds have insured mortgages since the 1930s. The question is what went wrong in the last decade. Reading a wider variety of news sources and spending less time clicking like might be of benefit.

DonBee

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:33 p.m.

braggslaw - Fanny and Freddie could not have provided that support if congress had not changed the laws they operate under. The specific bill that made those changes originated in Barney Frank's office, as a way to provide low income persons with a chance to join the ranks of home owners. Watch some of the U-Tube videos from the 1990s of Rep Frank yelling at banks in House Committee Hearings about redlining, minimum income and other rules they had that he was unhappy about and the threats he made to the banks about pulling their charters if they did not loan to more low income people for homes.

braggslaw

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:52 p.m.

No the govt. provided underwriting for bad loans, those loans were sold and the companies who wrote the loans were not penalized. The govt. created a system where everybody was writing bad loans but the originators would not have to pay the penalty. When the company writing the loan no longer cares about income, downpayment credit rating etc. the whole system breaks down... that is the fault of the govt. for getting involved and incentivizing (and in many cases forcing) banks to write bad loans.

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:39 p.m.

Those poor, poor mortgage dealers. Government put a gun to their heads and made them sign off on all those bad loans. They would never engage in unsound practices for short-term gain on their own!

Chip Reed

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:26 p.m.

To say a bridge is worth nothing because no one will buy it, reminds me of the old joke about buying the Brooklyn Bridge. Maybe it is not worth anything to Mr. Colmery's clients in the animal kingdom, but infrastructure is (along with defense) one of the traditional roles of government. If you look at everything from a marketplace perspective, you are reduced to a Thatcher-like view that there is no "society", only the individual and the family...

Diagenes

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:34 p.m.

Infrastructure can increase productivity. Its cheaper to transport goods along an efficient road system, but it does not add value to a commodity like refining oil into gasoline or steel into a car. Yes, national defense is the primary function of the federal government. Let the states handle their own roads, leave the feds out of it.

Craig Lounsbury

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:25 p.m.

"even a hamburger stand, develops wealth if it is run properly and generates a profit." "Simply paying for infrastructure repair robs Peter to pay Paul -- and both are out of a job when the money dries up." "Ben H. Colmery III is a veterinarian and .... has been on the faculty at Michigan State University" In order for the hamburger stand to function it needs a system of roads to receive its goods, it needs electricity, a source of heat, running water, and working sewer system. In other words it needs a functioning infrastructure. Ironically what the hamburger stand doesn't need is to pay a guy to be a veterinarian/teacher(?) at a University.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 11:48 p.m.

I assume nothing. I was responding to Gorc's post about party affiliation not making any difference. But excellent reading of the string! GN&GL

Macabre Sunset

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 5:57 p.m.

Interesting that Mr Good Night and Good Whatever assumes the writer is a Republican. I don't see a party affiliation myself. I think he would agree that corruption on both sides of the aisle led to this mess.

Arborcomment

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:03 p.m.

The successful (very successful) hamburger stand operator would reply that he has contributed 38% of the bill for the roads and infrastructure. I agree the author of this op/ed takes the bridge too far analogy - too far. His point may be that stimulus funding, those "shovel ready jobs" (that were not ready), are short term and when done, may not create sustained economic growth.

Edward R Murrow's Ghost

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:58 p.m.

"The argument is about an inept govenrment, regardless of party affiliation . . . " Ahh, but there's the rub. Party affiliation matters. Republicans are committed to government doing little if anything well--aside from being a cash cow for their buddies--and they govern that way. Then, when government predictably fails, they say, "See! We told ya! Government fails." And the lemmings reward them by voting for 'em. That was the strategy of the Party of "No" in 2009 and 2010, and it worked "perfectly". No matter that the nation remained mired in a recession. That was not the point of what they were doing. GN&GL

Gorc

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:53 p.m.

The argument isn't whether we need roads to supply our goods and services. The argument is about an inept govenrment, regardless of party affiliation, that mismanage virtually everything they touch. I'm not going to argue if Boston needed the "Big Dig" highway, but I can assure they did not need to spend $12,000,000,000 in overruns.

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:36 p.m.

Excellent points Craig. Amazing that a guy who spent over 20 years working at a public university wouldn't take these things into consideration. Even though he now appears to work for at a private practice, his work is still heavily subsidized via all the research done at public institutions.

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 1:16 p.m.

1% of the nation does not do 40% of the work, yet they've got 40% of the wealth. That's the fundamental problem in the nation and what the Occupy movement speaks to.

braggslaw

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 9:21 p.m.

I trust market based pay more than a bunch of pot smoking"occupy" psuedo intellectuals living in tents and looking for a handout..

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 7:08 p.m.

Bragg how did you get from my comment to the "burger slopper vs. computer develop" comparison? I never suggested - nor have I ever said - that everyone should be paid the same. I'm perfectly fine with some people making more than others and with some being wealthly. The Occupy movement relates to a very different set of issues. In the past decade those at the top have done very well while others - including the middle class - have lost ground. The 1% having 40% split signals to many people that the relationship between work and income is out of whack.

braggslaw

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 4:59 p.m.

What is "work" slopping burgers? Or is it developing an open source operating system that can seamlessly be used with multiple microprocessors? cleaning floors? Or is it developing a heated fuel injector so that E100 can be used in four cycle gasoline engines. The market values our "work"... Everybody in this country has opportunity to be greater than they are.... don't be envious of those who took that opportunity and don't destroy the incentives that drive people to be great.... I don't want to be Greece or Zimbabwe.

hroark

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 3:31 p.m.

A study of the total tax burden has been done. The total tax burden is not as progressive as one might think. <a href="http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf" rel='nofollow'>http://www.ctj.org/pdf/taxday2011.pdf</a>

northside

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:37 p.m.

I stand corrected: the richest 1% have 42% of the nation's wealth, not 40%.

DonBee

Sun, Dec 11, 2011 : 2:29 p.m.

Wealth is not income, wealth is what you own. The 2009 figure (latest available for wealth (and it is estimated) is 42 percent of wealth is concentrated in the top 1 percent. When it comes to income (what the government taxes) it is 16.9 percent of income that goes to the top 1 percent. The top 1 percent pays just over 36.7 percent of all Federal Income taxes. No one has actually done a study of their total tax load (property taxes, state income taxes, personal property taxes, etc). The last time I counted there are over 40 ways that the various governments tax us today. The slowest growing of those 40 ways is are income taxes. For instance franchise fees for cable have increased far faster than most taxes (for many more than doubled in the last decade) - franchise fees are a tax passed on to you by your local unit of government, collected by the cable company, the gas company, the electric company, the phone company, etc.